Reason: Because they are not eligible to inherit.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara says in Kidushin (Daf 17b) 'A Nochri inherits his father min ha'Torah ...

Answer: Nevertheless, they dod not own land in Eretz Yisrael.

Answer (cont,): And the current Halachah is confined to Eretz Yisrael, since it is a Mitzvah that is connected with the land, and a Nochri does not own land in Eretz Yisrael.

Clarification: The trees mentioned here are saplings ...

Reason: Because if they were fully-grown trees, three trees per Beis Sa'ah would suffice.

Clarification: If one plants ten trees in a Beis Sa'ah, each tree has two and hundred and fifty Amos (See Avodah Berurah).

Question: In Perek has'Mocher es ha'Sefinah (Bava Basra, Daf 82a), the Beraisa states that 'Someone who purchases three trees which are between eight and sixteen Amos apart acquires underneath them, between them and at their side the space for the picker and his basket' ...

Question (cont.): From which we see that they are not reckoned too close as long as there is a distance of not more than eight Amos square - which is sixty-four square Amos, and he receives land together with it ...

Question (concl.): Whereas here, the Gemara says that less than two hundred and fifty Amos, one has not been Makdish the ground?

Answer: The Ri draws a distinction between selling and declaring Hekdesh - inasmuch as a sale requires less land (See Avodah Berurah).

Question: Here the Gemara says that 'more than that, he does not receive land, whereas regarding a sale the Gemara rules that up to sixteen Amos by sixteen Amos - two hundred and fifty six square Amos, and it is not considered too scattered, and they have land (See Avodah Berurah)?

Answer: We will have to explain that the sixteen Amos in the case of Mechirah is speaking by a circle, whereas a square is a quarter more than a circle ...

Answer (cont.): It therefore turns out that a sale does not require as much land as in the case of Makdish (See Avodah Berurah.

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel asks in Bava Basra from the Tosefta which states that there is no difference between MOcher and Makdish with regard to the current Din of purchasing land?

Answer: And he answers that it is a Machlokes Tana'im.

Question: The question remains however, that Rebbi Shimon there holds that eight Amos between one tree and the other is not considered scattered - even regarding Hekdesh ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara here will shortly establish the Beraisa of ' 'Mata Asarah le'Beis Sa'ah' like Rebbi Shimon?

Answer: The Gemara only establishes it like Rebbi Shimon regarding the Din of 'Someone who is Makdish, does so with an Ayin Ra'ah (stingily)', but as far as the Shi'ur of planting trees is concerned, it does not go like Rebbi Shimon.

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks why they do not learn a Gezeirah Shavah from them? Granted we cannot learn a Binyan Av, but why not a Gezeirah Shavah?

Answer: 'Rebbi' answers that since the Torah sees fit to mention "Chomesh" by both Makdish one's Sadeh Achuzah and Makdish one's house, and it did not rely on a Gezeirah Shavah even though it could have...

Answer (cont.): And it opted to write "Chomesh" by each one independently ...

Answer (concl.): This is a proof that that they are 'Two Pesukim that come to teach us the same thing, and we cannot apply it elsewhere - even via a Gezeirah Shavah.

Authentic Explanation: It refers to the Seifa of the Seifa - 'If it wounded both of them, it pays full damages'.

Refuted Explanation: It cannot however refer to 'If it damaged an Eved' or 'If it killed a free man' ...

Refutation: Since Rebbi Akiva does not argue with the ruling that a Tam pays neither Kofer nor the thirty Sela'imn of an Eved' ...

Source: As the Gemara states in Perek Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chamishah (Bava Kama, Daf 42b).

Question: It is somewhat surprising that whereas the Mishnah states "Echad ha'Gedolah she'bi'Kehunah, ve'Echad ha'Ketanah she'be'Yisrael, Nosein Chamishim' ...

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara here mention 'ha'Gedolah bas Melachim', when the Mishnah talked of 'Gedolah she'bi'Kehunah'?